JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 21, 1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge, I-Class, Rampur whereby the application of the plaintiff7respbndent (here-after referred to as, the plaintiff) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners (here-after referred to as the defendants) from carrying out any further construction over the land in dispute, has been allowed. 2. Preliminary objection about the maintainable of this revision petition has been raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the remedy available to the defendants was to prefer an appeal before the concerned District Judge and the revision petition is not maintainable. 3. While replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended mat the suit was initially presented in the Court of the concerned District Judge in the absence of the Sub Judge concerned and the former had passed an interim injunction in the matter, therefore, having applied his mind to the controversy between the parties and having passed the interim injunction, the appeal would not lie to the District Judge on the well accepted principle that "appeal would not lie from Caesar to Caesar". 4. The High Courts are invested with the powers of revision under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 115 supra reads as follows: "(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either, to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding." 5. Under Rule l(r) of Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Code an appeal lies against an order under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code, therefore, the remedy of the appeal as provided under the law was available to the defendants. Thus, in view of the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a revision petition against an order passed under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code does not lie. 6. Thus, in view of the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a revision petition against an order passed under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code does not lie. 6. The mere presentation of the suit before the learned District Judge being the principal Court of original jurisdiction and his having passed an interim order does not exclude the power and jurisdiction of the District Judge from hearing the appeal against the final order which may be passed by a Court subordinate to him under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. The present revision petition, therefore, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. CMP No. 158/98: In view of the disposal of the revision petition, this application has become infrustuous and is accordingly dismissed.